[PASSED] World Assembly Justice Accord

[Bears Armed Mission]

OOC
"But them doing that hurts my feelings! I'm being oppressed by them!"

Would that be a good-faith interpretation though?)

OOC
Deciding that would be a question for these WA courts, when they decide whether to hear the cases.

[Separatist Peoples]

frankly, in that case, ill continue doing as i please, after all its not as if my refusal to follow biased and ridiculous resolutions, affects other nations anyway.

Hail the Confederation!

(OOC: Don’t do that. It’s considered godmodding, a form of poor roleplaying, to ignore GA resolutions. It would be like going into a realistic medieval war roleplaying thread and sending fourteen million nukes at one side.

OOC
"But them doing that hurts my feelings! I'm being oppressed by them!"

Would that be a good-faith interpretation though?)

Ooc: ignore scherzinger. They are constitutionally incapable of playing in good faith. They're here to generate grief. They have nothing valuable to offer. At all.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

OOC: Yes. A limited degree of non-compliance must be assumed by anyone thinking (hoping?) that the General Assembly is remotely realistic and not a campy exercise in utter fantasy. My thoughts on this are basically articulated by this very thinly disguised puppet as well as Gruen's [TDSR] post just below. In an imperfect world multiverse, not everything happens the way the enlightened authorities decree it shall; and so for whatever reason, be it "the wording of laws, judicial interpretation, government corruption, police budgets, police discretion/corruption, criminal competence, citizen attitudes, unforeseen cleverness or technical skill by criminals, [or any of] a dozen other factors that complicate the dirty business of actually ensuring societal compliance...", it's reasonable to assume that sometimes there are people or nations who need to be brought into line with global consensus.

OOC
Yes, some governments might fail to comply, deliberately or through negligence, but we already have procedures in place to handle such situations.
Yes, some individuals or organisations within nations might fail to comply, deliberately or through negligence... but in that case wouldn't the nations' duty to comply mean that they they must either handle such situations or be liable under the same procedures that would apply if the initial failure was theirs? WA courts should only be courts of final appeal in such cases, at the most, rather than courts of first action.

OOC: If corruption or incompetence of the national government is in play, there's really no reason why a wronged party should trust a national court to hear their case impartially; and while GAR #440 guarantees persons a right to remedy against the state for violations of WA law specifically, there may be forms of incompetence and malfeasance that the WA has not specifically outlawed that might affect the outcome of a court proceeding - even one in which a violation of WA law is at issue.

Regardless of all that, the assumption that because nations must comply based on OOC rules, therefore there's no reason for the WA to worry about compliance IC is, I think, long discredited. This proposal is simply the logical conclusion of that correct stance.

[Araraukar]

All this resolution can practically so is to force some punishment upon a convict where a member state refused to even try them. So if a person has already been convicted or lost a civil case within a member states' system and in accordance with their domestic and existing international law, this new international body cannot do any more, even if the injured party and this international court feel that the punishment/award is too light.

OOC: Ah, so it can be ignored in IC then. It's not at all apparent from the proposal text.

Regardless of all that, the assumption that because nations must comply based on OOC rules, therefore there's no reason for the WA to worry about compliance IC is, I think, long discredited.

OOC: That's something we'll just have to agree to disagree on, for reasons I've already explained.

[Kenmoria]

All this resolution can practically so is to force some punishment upon a convict where a member state refused to even try them. So if a person has already been convicted or lost a civil case within a member states' system and in accordance with their domestic and existing international law, this new international body cannot do any more, even if the injured party and this international court feel that the punishment/award is too light.

It's not nearly as wide ranging or offensive as people are making it out to be. In the normal course of events for the typically compliant member state, it's just an additional check to ensure that justice is done in accordance with the relevant member state's obligations under international law.

(OOC: Could you explain why this is? It seems that clause 4 makes no exceptions for when a crime has already been tried for, and I don’t think double jeopardy applies to the General Assembly.)

[Wallenburg]

All this resolution can practically so is to force some punishment upon a convict where a member state refused to even try them. So if a person has already been convicted or lost a civil case within a member states' system and in accordance with their domestic and existing international law, this new international body cannot do any more, even if the injured party and this international court feel that the punishment/award is too light.

It's not nearly as wide ranging or offensive as people are making it out to be. In the normal course of events for the typically compliant member state, it's just an additional check to ensure that justice is done in accordance with the relevant member state's obligations under international law.

(OOC: Could you explain why this is? It seems that clause 4 makes no exceptions for when a crime has already been tried for, and I don’t think double jeopardy applies to the General Assembly.)

OOC: You are correct, it does not. In a manner similar to the situation between the US federal courts and the several state courts, this resolution seeks to establish a sort of shared jurisdiction, in which the WA would naturally defer to the justice systems of member states, but would take up cases either unresolved or severely miscarried by member states.

[Kenmoria]

(OOC: Could you explain why this is? It seems that clause 4 makes no exceptions for when a crime has already been tried for, and I don’t think double jeopardy applies to the General Assembly.)

OOC: You are correct, it does not. In a manner similar to the situation between the US federal courts and the several state courts, this resolution seeks to establish a sort of shared jurisdiction, in which the WA would naturally defer to the justice systems of member states, but would take up cases either unresolved or severely miscarried by member states.

(OOC: That makes sense, and seems as though that’s the right level of interference with member nations’ judicial systems. I don’t see the need for complaints that this either is too little or too much of a violation of national sovereignty. As long as a member nation is handling complaints correctly, it can be uninterfered with by the GA if there aren’t transnational disputes.)

[HerpDeDerp]

Grand Emperor Charles Nighteye: We are here to announce our rejection of these communist ideas given by the world assembly. We will leave the WA today at 1:45 EST time. Goodbye.

[Kenmoria]

Grand Emperor Charles Nighteye: We are here to announce our rejection of these communist ideas given by the world assembly. We will leave the WA today at 1:45 EST time. Goodbye.

(OOC: Communist? It’s more globalist and internationalist than communist.)

[Separatist Peoples]

Grand Emperor Charles Nighteye: We are here to announce our rejection of these communist ideas given by the world assembly. We will leave the WA today at 1:45 EST time. Goodbye.

OOC: You will not be missed.

All this resolution can practically so is to force some punishment upon a convict where a member state refused to even try them. So if a person has already been convicted or lost a civil case within a member states' system and in accordance with their domestic and existing international law, this new international body cannot do any more, even if the injured party and this international court feel that the punishment/award is too light.

It's not nearly as wide ranging or offensive as people are making it out to be. In the normal course of events for the typically compliant member state, it's just an additional check to ensure that justice is done in accordance with the relevant member state's obligations under international law.

(OOC: Could you explain why this is? It seems that clause 4 makes no exceptions for when a crime has already been tried for, and I don’t think double jeopardy applies to the General Assembly.)

OOC: Extant law on double jeopardy ought to apply to the WA. If not, it would be an easy thing to do after the fact in an ancillary resolution.

[Bananaistan]

OOC: The resolution is utterly silent on a number of things. Primarily this double jeopardy issue. But the preamble is informative: "the World Assembly may safeguard the right of all inhabitants of member states to justice". If someone has received an appropriate sentence according to the laws and culture of the member state where a crime took place, it is not at all in the interests of justice for this international court to decide to try them again merely because some crank somewhere reckons they weren't treated harshly enough.

Other things the resolution is silent on: whether this international court can dream up its own sentencing guidelines. We have long standing RP precedent that where a resolution doesn't define something, it's up to member states to interpret themselves. It's not unreasonable for Bananaistan to ICly interpret this resolution in such a fashion that because it makes no mention of double jeopardy or sentencing, in any criminal case involving a crime committed in Bananaistan which for some reason ended up in this court, the court would be bound to apply Bananamen law in terms of sentencing and the conduct of the trial. Anything not said in a resolution is always up to member states to decide for themselves.

[Marxist Germany]

Grand Emperor Charles Nighteye: We are here to announce our rejection of these communist ideas given by the world assembly. We will leave the WA today at 1:45 EST time. Goodbye.

"May the door hit you whilst you are leaving your office."

[Imperium Anglorum]

viewtopic.php?p=9653011#p9653011

2. OUTLAWS retrials except where significant and compelling miscarriages of justice can result from allowing the verdict previously reached to stand, such as when proper legal procedure was not followed in the course of the previous trial.

3. MANDATES that each member nation shall independently determine, for their nation's legal system:
a. Specific circumstances, which qualify as significant miscarriages of justice, under which retrials are allowed.
b. A reasonably low limit on the number of such retrials.

4. FORBIDS retrials under all circumstances within a given nation except as allowed under clause 3.

[Kenmoria]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=9653011#p9653011

(OOC: If the WA Judiciary Committee allows somebody to appeal a verdict, it stands to reason that the committee must have viewed the original sentencing as being a miscarriage of justice in some way, which would fit within clause 2 of Preventing Multiple Trials.)

[Bananaistan]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=9653011#p9653011

(OOC: If the WA Judiciary Committee allows somebody to appeal a verdict, it stands to reason that the committee must have viewed the original sentencing as being a miscarriage of justice in some way, which would fit within clause 2 of Preventing Multiple Trials.)

OOC: It speaks only to allowing the verdict to stand. A retrial is only permitted where the verdict was miscarriage of justice. This international court can't just decide to retry because the sentence was too light in its opinion.

Also, good spot by IA.

[Veshat]

A stern faced man clears his throat, drumming on the table with his fingers to get the Assembly's attention before standing up and speaking.

"What you are saying is ludicrous, you expect us to surrender our national sovereignty to a foreign power who will dictate our laws and how we should govern ourselves? So such forces such as Wallenburg, can not only betray their own people with their weak state and backwards laws but my people as well?"

He shook his head sitting down, adjusting his party lapel pin before speaking again

"Veshat can not have that, we will be voting against this "resolution". I will not sell my people out, to some corrupt foreign institution."

[Sierra Lyricalia]

...some corrupt foreign institution."

"...which your nation joined without anyone holding a gun to your head. Painting yourselves as put-upon victims of vile villainy is as hilarious as it is pathetic."

"Mr. Ogenbond, my fingers are crossed that the current high level of whinging from repressive states is indicative of a good outcome, as it has been in the past."

[Separatist Peoples]

(OOC: If the WA Judiciary Committee allows somebody to appeal a verdict, it stands to reason that the committee must have viewed the original sentencing as being a miscarriage of justice in some way, which would fit within clause 2 of Preventing Multiple Trials.)

OOC: It speaks only to allowing the verdict to stand. A retrial is only permitted where the verdict was miscarriage of justice. This international court can't just decide to retry because the sentence was too light in its opinion.

Also, good spot by IA.

OOC: Unless it was so light as to itself be a miscarriage of justice, like community service for multiple homicides. In that case, the verdict may not end up reviewed, but the sentencing may.

In isolation, this resolution looks terrible, but when placed in the context of other resolutions, its much more nuanced.

[Aclion]

Grand Emperor Charles Nighteye: We are here to announce our rejection of these communist ideas given by the world assembly. We will leave the WA today at 1:45 EST time. Goodbye.

"May the door hit you whilst you are leaving your office."

"Wait they got an office? Why do they get an office?"

[Veshat]

...some corrupt foreign institution."

"There is oppressive and then there is you, neglectful. The job of the state is to protect the people who's duty it is to protect, not throw them to the wolves and force them to make decisions they don't even want to make nor are significantly educated enough to make. The neglectful father rears a criminal, the one who laws down the law rears an upstanding one. Matters of the state are no different."

[Separatist Peoples]

"There is oppressive and then there is you, neglectful. The job of the state is to protect the people who's duty it is to protect, not throw them to the wolves and force them to make decisions they don't even want to make nor are significantly educated enough to make. The neglectful father rears a criminal, the one who laws down the law rears an upstanding one. Matters of the state are no different."

"None of this is relevant, ambassador. Your government chose to join the World Assembly, knowing it had an obligation to obey resolutions, and knowing there was a risk resolutions would pass that your government wouldn't support. Your government made that choice. You are not a victim, individually or collectively.

"Of course, this makes less sense since you're railing against a resolution that would, in fact, lay down the law, which means it will theoretically generate beneficial results and not criminal ones. Your whole argument, ambassador, is bloody backwards."

[Veshat]

"Of course, this makes less sense since you're railing against a resolution that would, in fact, lay down the law, which means it will theoretically generate beneficial results and not criminal ones. Your whole argument, ambassador, is bloody backwards."

" "theoretically" In practice and on paper are two very different things. You are violating the national sovereignty of all World Assembly members, in a ruling that will mean nothing without jurisdiction outside of World Assembly lines. It sets a dangerous precedent, that if applied in a logical manner will mean effects outside of the WA. We just joined this assembly thinking it was much better than it actually was, is that a sin?"

[Separatist Peoples]

" "theoretically" In practice and on paper are two very different things. You are violating the national sovereignty of all World Assembly members, in a ruling that will mean nothing without jurisdiction outside of World Assembly lines. It sets a dangerous precedent, that if applied in a logical manner will mean effects outside of the WA. We just joined this assembly thinking it was much better than it actually was, is that a sin?"

"Members who chose to join, knowing it would involve waiving some sovereignty. The effects will not exceed WA jurisdictions because the WA has no authority over nonmember nations. It sets no precedent that did not already exist.

"Ambassador, you joined this Assembly knowing it would impede on your sovereignty. If it impedes too much for your toleration, resign or repeal this resolution."

[Veshat]

"Members who chose to join, knowing it would involve waiving some sovereignty. The effects will not exceed WA jurisdictions because the WA has no authority over nonmember nations. It sets no precedent that did not already exist.

"Ambassador, you joined this Assembly knowing it would impede on your sovereignty. If it impedes too much for your toleration, resign or repeal this resolution."

"I am well aware of how the World Assembly works. You speak but you fail to listen."

"If a member nation is accused of a crime, all they have to do is leave. Like you said the WA "has no authority over nonmember nations". Even if they harm another member nation, there is nothing that can be done. This resolution will have no effect on rule breakers, since you have to have their written consent to even trial them. Tell me what a thief would say if you asked him if he wanted to be put on trial or not. It's silly at best, terrible at worst and all around useless."

[Separatist Peoples]

"I am well aware of how the World Assembly works. You speak but you fail to listen."

"Say something worth listening to, then?"

"If a member nation is accused of a crime, all they have to do is leave. Like you said the WA "has no authority over nonmember nations". Even if they harm another member nation, there is nothing that can be done. This resolution will have no effect on rule breakers, since you have to have their written consent to even trial them. Tell me what a thief would say if you asked him if he wanted to be put on trial or not. It's silly at best, terrible at worst and all around useless."

"Leaving the World Assembly subjects member states to political and economic repercussions, including loss of favorable trade rights, lack of recognition from fellow WA nations, and no protection from a number of particularly bad acts. Destabilizing political action, counterfeiting, intellectual property infringement, so on and so forth.

"All that means any nation that wishes to leave does so knowing it loses many, many protections. Maybe that's not enough. Maybe it is. Any nation that had a reason to join in the first place probably doesn't value noncompliance more than it values membership. And if they leave, so much the better.

"Yours is a piss-poor argument, ambassador."